Nadine Dorries: the fiction saga continues

Nadine Dorries published an extraordinary attack on me on her not-really-a-blog last night, and followed this up by ignoring all criticism of it on Twitter (branding it “hate tweets from lefties and the odd misogynist on the right.”) and only thanking the two people who supported her attempt to (again) divert attention away from her lies with further lies.

Because Dorries is prone to making unmarked changes to her published outbursts, I include the full, original text below and counter it with the simple and confident statement that more than 70% of it is fiction (that which is not a gross distortion of the truth is a lie):

Following my debate the other evening to introduce informed consent and the subsequent final statement from the Minister which was;

Having in place informed consent, appropriate counselling and the right support for women at this vulnerable time will ensure that we do not fail them for the future.

The sharks are already circling.

The purpose of the debate was to keep very firmly away from the ideological positions of pro-choice and pro-life. I made a point in the debate of stating that in the process of establishing informed consent, women should be given information which is, clear, accurate, void of political ideology and provides options underpinned by a network of support. I stated that both pro-choice and pro-life campaigners should have input and be in agreement. My debate was pro-women.

I very clearly state that one of those options should be adoption and how that can be achieved and how women can be supported through. I make no apology for this. There are many fantastic people who have been through the adoption process, who would have been aborted had their birth mother been pregnant today.

I mentioned in the speech the charity ‘Forsaken’. I didn’t say registered charity. I would imagine it is too new to have reached those dizzy heights. It is a pro- women charity, not pro-choice or pro-life.

Already, Forsaken have had the infamous Bloggerheads, Tim Ireland, on the phone this morning. Probing, asking questions about their status, amking the usual inappropriate comments etc. Usual Tim Ireland, agressive ‘I have a right to know all about you’ style.

I am an elected member Tim. You harass me on an almost daily basis, including my staff and my Chairman. I am expected, even though you aren’t one of my constituents, to take it. I am expected to tolerate your inappropriate level of intense attention, as were the MPs you harassed before me.

Members of the public are not.

If you put into place your usual method of operation of continuous telephone calls, blogging, blitz emailing thousands of ranting words etc to people going about their daily business, I am sure the Police may take a strong view.

You have been warned. I will not tolerate anyone else being subjected to your intense, inappropriate, abusive behaviour, simply because they have some, even the most distant, association to me.

I contacted Forsaken (by email only) to make enquiries about their status as a charity, and included a follow up question about how long they’d been operating under the income threshold that stops them from having to register as one. I have now dared to send a third email asking them to confirm that I have not called them, and I will let you know if they get back to me.

In the meantime, here are two posts that look closer at some of the things that Nadine Dorries claimed in the House of Commons recently. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to find that not all of it adds up, and some of it appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the House:

The rest is Dorries assuring us that police may take an interest in things I might do in the future, but there is one item of potential interest, and it is this:

I am an elected member Tim. You harass me on an almost daily basis, including my staff and my Chairman. I am expected, even though you aren’t one of my constituents, to take it. I am expected to tolerate your inappropriate level of intense attention, as were the MPs you harassed before me.

Let that sink in, because if Dorries cannot even produce evidence of her making a complaint to police, her claims that they went on to launch an investigation appear even more calculated, if not insidious.

Further, I suspect that “I am expected… to take it” is the nearest we’re going to get to an admission that it is only recently that Dorries has spoken to police about this, and that they have responded by telling her that she hasn’t got anything near a case. I suspect she may even have been advised by now that MPs are expected to subject themselves to a reasonable level of scrutiny and claims they make in the House may be legally fact-checked by members of the public who (*gasp*) aren’t even her constituents.

I expect this has come as a bit of a shock to the MP who thinks she should be reporting my perceived crimes directly though the local Chief Constable, thus the intensity of the outburst.

I have no statement to make about my intentions re: potential civil action at this time, but otherwise comments are open below and you can find me here on Twitter, answering questions and keeping up with the latest.

7 Responses to "Nadine Dorries: the fiction saga continues"

I do not understand how someone with the standards I ought to be able to expect of a Member of Parliament feels able to publish such serious, directed accusations about an individual, and yet despite a popular campaign by many members of the public, consistently refuse to offer any evidence, whatsoever, to substantiate her claims.

If you were in any way harrassing her, and especially if she feels her safety is threatened, then it seems inconceivable that she would constantly try to provoke you like this – and yet she does.

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye – I’m conscious of the fact that I might not know all the facts, but so far I’m having serious reservations about Ms. Dorries and her suitablity to serve as a Member of Parliament.

I posted, and emailed Dorries, about errors she made in her Commons' speech regarding the Journal of Psychiatry study on the increased risk of mental health disorders in women who have had an abortion. I have received no reply as yet nor do I expect one. I imagine that I've been lumped in with the "sharks" to which she refers.

By Clive November 5, 2010 - 8:44 pm

For what is is worth, her blog is hosted by Acidity on a dedicated server operated by Coreix in London. Whilst Acidity don’t have an acceptable use policy, Coreix do (http://www.coreix.net/company/policy/aup.php). Parts b and d of point 1 seem most appropriate:

Unacceptable use includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:

Posting, transmission, re-transmission, or storing material on or through any of Coreix’s products or services, if in the sole judgment of Coreix such posting, transmission, re-transmission or storage is: (a) in violation of any local, state, federal, or non-United States law or regulation (including rights protected by copyright, trade secret, patent or other intellectual property or similar laws or regulations); (b) threatening or abusive; (c) obscene; (d) indecent; or (e) defamatory. Each customer shall be responsible for determining what laws or regulations are applicable to his or her use of the products and services.

I guess, given her statement that 70% of her blog is fiction you could possibly try point 4:

Deceptive marketing practices.

Point 15 is also a bit tenuous I suppose:

Harassment, whether through language, frequency, or size of messages.

Now Coreix Limited are UK-based, so a complaint to them that one of Acidity’s clients has effectively put Acidity in breach of their AUP might have a sobering effect?

By Scott November 5, 2010 - 10:42 pm

I went and read the Dominic Wightman blog that Dorries linked to. The guy doesn't quite seem to grasp the concept of evidence.. he just barks an awful lot about how innocent of everything he is without backing himself up at all. He then goes on to offer you [Tim] a 'truce'. If anyone is currently quaking in their little white cowardly booties it would appear to be Wightman.

For all the things you can be called I don't believe 'coward' is ever going to be a fair comment. At all.

Would you be able to publish your emails that you sent to Forsaken to show that you aren't being "aggresive"?

By Tim_Ireland November 8, 2010 - 9:21 am

I have asked the recipient for their permission so I might publish all of the correspondence, but have to be patient lest Dorries misrepresent the relevant attempt(s) at contact. Very frustrating.

By fromliverpool November 9, 2010 - 4:45 am

This isn't going to do any good BUT hopefully readers will realize there are people who are HONEST and know Dorries through and through.
She told one heck of a lie about an issue where I was THERE. (present in the flesh ) I confronted her. She "lost it" ( she goes hysterical when put in a corner ) she actually made it appear that it was ME that didn't have any idea what I was talking about. This is beyond anyone's comprehension but it's a fact. I can assure you that she an get out of any situation she is placed in ( how I will never know ) she uses people too and they are fooled. I would like to know why Cameron lets her get away with so many things !!!!